gitlab-api

Get repository packages

gitlab_get_repository_packages

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve repository package details for a GitLab project, including names, versions, types, and statuses, to inspect available artifacts and manage dependencies.

Instructions

Get information about repository packages for a specific project.

Args: **kwargs: Additional parameters for the request (e.g., project_id).

Returns: Response: A wrapper containing the original response and a list of Package models.

Raises: MissingParameterError: If the project_id is missing. ParameterError: If invalid parameters are provided.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "gitlab_get_repository_packages"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ref`	No
`page`	No
`sort`	No
`select`	No
`status`	No
`group_id`	No
`per_page`	No
`file_name`	No
`max_pages`	No
`package_id`	No
`project_id`	No
`package_name`	No
`package_type`	No
`package_version`	No
`include_versionless`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedv27.3.20Nov 7, 2026

removedInput schema / properties / api_parameters

Removed value: -{
-  "anyOf": [
-    {
-      "additionalProperties": true,
-      "type": "object"
-    },
-    {
-      "type": "null"
-    }
-  ],
-  "default": null
-}

changedInput schema / properties / page / default
```
Previous value: -1New value: +null
```
changedInput schema / properties / per_page / default
```
Previous value: -100New value: +null
```

First observedv27.3.13Oct 25, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by stating the return shape (a wrapper containing the raw response plus a list of Package models) and the two error conditions (MissingParameterError when project_id is absent, ParameterError on invalid params). It says nothing about pagination behavior or rate limits for what is likely a paginated list endpoint.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The docstring is short and front-loads the purpose, which is good, but the 'Args: **kwargs: Additional parameters for the request' block is a wasted line that conveys no information and pushes genuinely useful detail out. The Returns and Raises sections are the most valuable content and are appropriately brief.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 15-parameter listing tool with zero schema description coverage and no output schema, the description is thin — it names one parameter, gives the return wrapper generically, and omits all filtering and pagination semantics. An agent could not confidently construct a filtered package query from this definition alone.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0% across 15 parameters, so the description carries the full burden and does almost nothing: only project_id is mentioned, via the '**kwargs' example. Filters that are clearly critical to correct invocation — status, package_type, package_name, package_version, include_versionless, sort, select, page/per_page/max_pages — are never explained, and the description does not even reveal which parameters are required.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The first sentence states a specific verb ('Get information about') and resource ('repository packages') scoped to a project. It is distinguishable from mutation siblings like publish_repository_package and download_repository_package, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of when to prefer this over gitlab_download_repository_package or publish_repository_package, and no preconditions beyond the implicit requirement for project_id noted under Raises.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server